ghostbustersfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Questions on linking and styles
First off, is there a reason when linking to tv episodes we use the single bracket and http encoding but for all other articles the internal linked double bracket " Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 18:05, October 22, 2011 (UTC) ::On the Vampires (Type of Creatures) page, when editing in source view, you can see that the episodes mentioned in Appearances have single bracket http coding with the name of the episode repeated after the link. Other hyper linked words use the regular double bracket. When Mrmichaelt "corrected" one of my edits concerning a Ghosts R Us article, that was one of the changes he made. I am glad to hear that the double bracket is the preferred method. It is, after all, why wikia encoding was made for. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 18:54, October 22, 2011 (UTC) :::Double brackets are used for linking to other articles in the Ghostbusters Wikia. Single brackets are usually only for external links and references. The Vampires (Type of Creatures) needs to be corrected. We're also trying to makes sure the majority of articles speak in an in-universe perspective not "In the episode..." for the History sections. Trivia, "In the episode..." is accepted. Mrmichaelt 05:40, October 23, 2011 (UTC) :Also when describing events, should present or past tense be used. It is inconsistent in several articles. I looked for the answer but couldn't find it. (sorry for the two things in one post, but these should be short conversations so I didn't want to post two topics). IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 17:46, October 22, 2011 (UTC) :You are right. We have not officially decided that yet. It is a issue, and one that may fall into yet another issue of Real world vs canon debate as well. As you may know IthinkIwannaLeia, the Ghostbusters Franchise has a break off canon for RGB. This wiki and myself included, have tried to leave this issue open as long as possible. Personally, once we get this "structured", I fear we're not be a very open wiki anymore. But as you know, we already are getting further down the road and these issues will now have to be properly addressed and answered. I want to wait to hear what Mrmichaelt has to say first. I have not been inputting as much text into articles as I once had, and Michael pretty much has done the bulk of the work lately. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 18:04, October 22, 2011 (UTC) ::I had no idea this wasn't decided yet. Hopefully you wont think it presumtuous of me to start the discussion in a seperate topic (as this topic is already all over the place). I don't think you have to worry about structure making a wiki less open. Better style guidlines would allow new editors to add with more confidence. Infact after this issue gets decided, an administrator should probably add a "stylistic guidelines" section in the community portal listing thing "start the article with the title in bold" and "all descriptions should be in complete sentences." Most of that info is there, but it is at the bottom of different articles. The in-universe/ out-of universe perspective should also be descussed there. Some articles need to be out of universe and trivia sections should may be out of universe, but most of the article need to be (and are already) written from the in-universe perspective (unlike wikipedia). This needs to be officialized if not already done and placed in the community portal. Do you agree? IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 18:54, October 22, 2011 (UTC) :::oh and since this has already become a hodge podge of topics: I also think we need to have an topic here for the consistancy of naming articles. Should the vampire article be "Vampire" or "Vampires" should "type of creature" articles really have that in the title of the article (so when we are editing we have to always write that phrase instead of simply writing "imps" etc. I don't know if any of these things have official policy or if it is "just the way it's been done." But having all of this would make it easier to edit correctly. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 19:00, October 22, 2011 (UTC) ::::Personally, I'm trying to shoot for past tense. But as long as the sentences make sense from a grammatical standpoint. There's still a lot of articles with spelling errors even. Mrmichaelt 05:40, October 23, 2011 (UTC) ::::The (Type of...) in the names are reserved for generic entities. For this case, there are times the Ghostbusters faced vampires. Other, it was vampire like Count Vostok. So the wikia accommodates for both general and specific. But that sort of thing was decided before I joined. Mrmichaelt 05:40, October 23, 2011 (UTC) :::::To be honest, while the articles are needed to make the wiki move smooth and such, the actually name I think is fair game here. There really isn't a lot of them. So right now it does something like Vampires (Type of Creatures) which is a double plural. How about "Vampires (Type of Creature)"? That may sound better. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 06:25, October 23, 2011 (UTC) ::::::I...disagree. Type of Creatures works because RGB and EGB presented different "species" of vampires. Even with those Imps and Trolls. Mrmichaelt 06:43, October 23, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Then it stays the way it is. Not sure why we originally did the the names the way we did, but current staff agree here. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 06:46, October 23, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Well the whole thing sounds funny to me. I believe that the articles should just be "Vampires," "Imps," or "Trolls." The place for the words"Type of creatures" is really in the Category sections. First of all, in almost all of the Type of creatures articles it is clear from the short title that they are a type of creature and not a specific individual (we don't have a Slimer article and a Slimers (type of creatures) article). Second of all, when internal linking in articles (which I am trying to increase and improve) it is so much simpiler to write,"and then they met Dracula, a "Vampire" than it is to write, "and then they met Dracula, a "Vampires (type of creatures)|Vampire"." Furthermore, even given your explanation of different species of vampires, I don't think "Vampires, Type of Creatures" is grammatically correct. If you had several species of vampires then it would be "Vampires (Typ'es' of Creatures). Furthermore, in actual encyclopedias and dictionairies, you would never have a plural as the name of the article unless it only came in plural. The title would be,"Vampire," there would be a line that says "(plural: Vampires)" and the classification would be,"Type of Undead creature). I know wikias are a little bit different and each individual wiki is different. We went through the same thing on wookieepedia a few years ago. It was decided that species would be listed as singular (and no "species") after it. If there was any confusion, a disambigution page would be created. It made adding internal links easier when writing because you dont have to remember what words come after "Imp" in the title of the article to link to it when you are writing. Cuts down on a lot of red links from casual editors too (because their first guest is the right one. I think we should rename them all and redirect the former (type of creatures) titles to the new, simpiler titles. If you agree with me, I will be happy to undertake the progect. :::::::And at risk of writing a book here, I think the animated articles should really be tittled, "Name (animated)".....eg. Slimer (animated) not Slimer/Animated). The slash sign or oblique really means, "either,or" or a.k.a. It can also be used to indicate a close relationship between two words (replacing a dash in Judeo-Christian for example). It is not used to distinguish different versions of an item. In fact it is used just the opposite: to avoide distinction in naming controversies, e.g. yahweh/Jahova. I am not sure why my examples were both religious, but perhaps the power of christ will compel you (Exorsist reference) to see things my way. :::::::If you like Slimer (animated) better, once again, I will handle all the name changes and the redirect links. Since the two main admins are already responding to this convo, let anyone else that needs to vote and let me know what you decide. If we should make a new conversation for "article name conventions" we can do that too. :::::::IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 20:57, October 25, 2011 (UTC) (sorry for the length) ::::::::It simply indicates the entity is a broad indicator it is a type of creature and within the article there can be one or more species of this type. We phased out disambiguation pages in favor of these "Type of" articles. So I disagree, and I'm satisfied with where the wikia is at on that subject. ::::::::I think you answered your own question. Since we've split canons, the prime canon (the movies and The Video Game) is the primary source for say Egon. Then we have Egon/Animated as a secondary article for the character, or a different version of the character whom exists in a different continuity which we specify with "/Animated". Similarly, we went through some time updating articles to reflect the "/Animated". ::::::::To sum it up, I'm against both for the reasons I stated above. Mrmichaelt 23:48, October 25, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::I think you do not know this wiki's history IthinkIwannaLeia. No one wants to rename the "Animated" articles again. They name is good enough. Work with what we got please. All three admins (Mrmichaelt, SonofSamhain, and myself) all played a part in renaming all the Animated articles to what you see now. If you look to the far top left of the start of the article Slimer/Animated below the article name Slimer/Animated you will see "< Slimer" and that is why we did it that way. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 03:30, October 26, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Well no, I am new blood and I am sure you went through many iterations of naming strategies in the past. I have no problem with the animated articles, it is the use of the slash that is incorrect. I did not, "answer my own question." Egon/animated either means the word "Egon" is synonomous with the word "animated" or it indicates that the idea of "Egon" is closely linked with the word "animated" (as if egon and animated are similar ideas or evoke the same feelings, etc. To indicate that an article is talking about a modified or different version of Egon, the animated should be in parentheses. Similar to when you are citing a book: Webster's dictionary (abridged). I know the slash is grammatically incorrect for what your trying to represent. Wikipedia has a good article on its uses here. If the admins wanna keep it thats fine. It is a minor concern and I wont sweat it, but it does look wrong/weird to the average reader. (parentheses are the way to go). IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 08:23, October 26, 2011 (UTC) :The official wikipedia name for them is "Subpages". The feature over there has been in debate if it should be in use. (Read if you want) Anyways it is a option that we chose to use here at this time. This is all opinions as to if it should be used or not are debated everywhere. (Wikia on Subpages) But no one wants to change things "again" so this discussion is pointless. However, I am going to link to this discussion when this (Subpages) is covered on the Article Naming Policy (Coming soon!). Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 19:46, October 26, 2011 (UTC)